Abstract
The rapid advancement of surgical technology is sometimes breathtaking, and the notion of measuring this change and ensuring a high level of safety represents a challenge for most surgeons and communities. This chapter discusses some interesting and innovative ways that surgeons and surgical organizations have led the way by diligently attempting to achieve both measurement of the application of technological advancements, while maintaining public safety standards through this process. For associated aspects, refer to the relevant chapter and volume.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Further Reading, References, and Resources
American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality and Safety Program (NSQIP). Available from: http://site.acsnsqip.org/. Accessed July 2013.
Audige L, Bhandari M, Griffin D, Middleton P, Reeves B. Systematic reviews of nonrandomised clinical studies in the orthopaedic literature. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;427:249–57.
Babidge W, Maddern G. Evidence-based surgery at ASERNIP-S. Can this improve quality in surgical practice? Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures-Surgical. J Qual Clin Pract. 2000;20(4):164–6.
Beavers KL, Sandler RS, Fair JH, Johnson MW, Shrestha R. The living donor experience: donor health assessment and outcomes after living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2001;7(11):943–7.
Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al. Evaluating nonrandomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(27):iii–x, 1–173.
Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, Boutron I, Clavien PA, Reeves BC, Seiler CM, for the Balliol Collaboration. Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet. 2009;374(9695):1097–104.
Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group. GRADE grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490.
Green S. When should we believe the results? Quality issues in surgical research. Plenary address at the Annual Scientific Congress, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Melbourne, Australia; 2004 May 4.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. for the GRADE Working Group Analysis: Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–6.
Kuehn BM. Surgeons continue to debate place of randomized trials of surgical procedures. JAMA. 2009;302(14):1513–4, 9.
Kunz R, Vist G, Oxman AD. Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials: (Cochrane Methodology Review). In: The Cochrane library, issue 2. Chichester: Wiley; 2004.
Lanois B, Lynch J, Padbury R, Morris D, House T, Stanton P, et al. Systematic review of adult-to-adult live donor liver transplantation. ASERNIP-S Report No. 22 (Donor outcomes) and Report No. 34 (Recipient outcomes). Adelaide: ASERNIP-S; 2004.
Maddern G, Boult M, Ahern E, Babidge W. ASERNIP-S: international trend setting. Aust N Z J Surg. 2008;78(10):853–8.
McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, Nicholl J, for the Balliol Collaboration. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374(9695):1105–12.
Mills N, Donovan JL, Smith M, Jacoby A, Neal DE, Hamdy FC. Perceptions of equipoise are crucial to trial participation: a qualitative study of men in the ProtecT study. Control Clin Trials. 2003;24(3):272–82.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) UK. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/. Accessed July 2013.
National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia How to use the evidence: assessment and application of scientific evidence. Handbook series on preparing clinical practice guidelines Australian Commonwealth Government Publishers, Canberra, 2000. ISBN 0 642 43295 3.
NHMRC. NHMRC levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines. National Health and Medical Research Council; 2009. Available from: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/resources-guidelines-developers.
Pham C, Watkin S, Middleton P, Maddern G. Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: an accelerated systematic review. ASERNIP-S Report No. 41. Adelaide: ASERNIP-S; 2004.
Thavaneswaran P, Richardson C, Humphreys K. Rapid review of robotic-assisted surgery for urological, cardiac and gynaecological procedures. ASERNIP-S Report No. 75. Adelaide: ASERNIP-S; 2009.
The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from: http://www.cochrane.org/. Accessed July 2013.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) USA. Available from: http://nih.gov/. Accessed July 2013.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag London
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Maddern, G.J., Thavaneswaran, P., Coventry, B.J. (2014). Evaluation of Surgical Safety and Efficacy. In: Coventry, B. (eds) General Surgery Risk Reduction. Surgery: Complications, Risks and Consequences. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5391-7_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5391-7_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-5390-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-5391-7
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)